Crafting Syllabi in a Chat-GPT World

Across the country, educators are writing their syllabi for the fall semesters. Whether they’re working in K-12 or collegiate environments, they’re considering how they can develop their classroom policies and course content to reflect the strange new world we’re all working and living in. Since the release of Chat-GPT (and its generative AI cousins like Bard, Dall-e, etc.), educators are wondering how best to respond to the tools and communicate expectations that clearly define to students what they can and cannot do. If you’re reading this post and hoping that I’m going to tell you exactly the language you should do or what language you should include, I want to apologize ahead of time. I can’t (and won’t) do that. Our content areas and classrooms are too diverse to have a single approach. Also, each of us have different philosophical responses to generative AI tools. So, a one-size-fits-all approach is simply not going to work. You’re going to need to do some personal and professional reflection and make some decisions.

I’ve spent the last few days digging around online. I wanted to see how different institutions were responding to this “syllabi language” challenge and what supports they were offering. The University of Vermont offered the following reflection questions to guide educators as they begin writing their syllabi:

• What kind of relationship do you want to have with your students?
• What do you want your students to know about you and your philosophy?
• How can you foster trust?
• How much support from AI is too much?
• Where and how should students disclose their use of AI?

These are important considerations for educators. Again, I can’t answer these questions for you. You’re going to need to do the heavy lifting yourself. As you start to reflect on these aspects, remember that you don’t need to take an either/or approach. You don’t need to completely allow generative AI or completely ban it. You can spell out acceptable usage for your class and set clear policy guidelines for students. It’s in your students’ (and your) best interest to communicate these expectations clearly from the start.

If you’re wondering what that syllabi language could look like, check out these resources:

Texas A&M University Generative AI Syllabus Statement Considerations:
This is a great resource offering lots of sample language including examples across a continuum of usage and instructor permission. The resource also draws from a bunch of other institutions (University of New Hampshire, Princeton University, etc.) to showcase different approaches.

Temple University Sample Syllabus Statements for the Use of AI Tools in Your Course:
This resource was the inspiration for this post. A colleague shared this with my department a few days ago. Again, this resource offers language across a range of uses and can easily be modified for your classroom and content.

Oregon State University AI Sample Syllabus Statements and Assignment Language:
At first glance, this resource may not seem to anything that different from the previous links I’ve shared. But if you look more closely at the two syllabi language examples offered, you’ll see a slight difference in tone. Consider the questions I posed earlier in the post and how these educators communicate their stance on their areas.

Colorado State University: What should a syllabus statement on AI look like?
Again, this may not seem wildly different than the other links. The value added with this resource is a short commentary after each example explaining the educator’s intent with the language.

At this point of the post, I’m sure some of you are wondering what language I plan to include in my syllabi. I’m still finalizing the details, but I’m working from the language offered in the Temple University resource which outlines acceptable and unacceptable use of AI in my classrooms. I’ll be sure to share the final language in another post.